Superprime dilemma (300mm v. 400mm)

travischance

Given the & 7D's attributes relative to sports photography (AF, 8fps, resolution, weather sealing, etc), I don't see a real need to upgrade to a FF body in the near future (2-3 years). Currently, I am ready to invest in a super prime but am hesitant as I am unsure if the 400 2.8L will be "too much" reach over the 300 2.8L (given the 1.6x crop factor).

I currently use my 70-200 2.8L for sports but given its range, have missed several opportunities. With the semi-pro football season around the corner (I miss playing so much!!!) & HS starting in August, I'd like to get going pretty quickly. What I don't want to do is purchase one, only to realize that I should have purchased the other... Yes I know I can rent both, but I'd rather apply those funds to glass.

To the seasoned sports shooters, what are your suggestions? From what I'm seeing, A new 300 is almost the same price as a previously owned 400. Thank You in advance!

ian408

Rent from borrowlenses.com and see which you prefer. Then you can compare the costs, etc and arrive at your decision.

Erbeman

travischance wrote: »

Given the & 7D's attributes relative to sports photography (AF, 8fps, resolution, weather sealing, etc), I don't see a real need to upgrade to a FF body in the near future (2-3 years). Currently, I am ready to invest in a super prime but am hesitant as I am unsure if the 400 2.8L will be "too much" reach over the 300 2.8L (given the 1.6x crop factor).

I currently use my 70-200 2.8L for sports but given its range, have missed several opportunities. With the semi-pro football season around the corner (I miss playing so much!!!) & HS starting in August, I'd like to get going pretty quickly. What I don't want to do is purchase one, only to realize that I should have purchased the other... Yes I know I can rent both, but I'd rather apply those funds to glass.

To the seasoned sports shooters, what are your suggestions? From what I'm seeing, A new 300 is almost the same price as a previously owned 400. Thank You in advance!

I had been thinking about this exact quandry since the end of last football season. The wife said she would get me a 300 before next season started for my birthday. Well, the more I thought about it, I started leaning towards a used 400 for about $6k instead of a new 300 for $5k. However, I shoot with a Nikon FF and a crop as my 2nd camera. The thing you need to think about is, FF camera's are just plain better at shooting night games because of the higher ISO capabilities. I shoot Nikon, so I'm not familiar with your camera body, but, most games are at night. I've not seen any of your football pics, so I couldn't tell you what I think about how well you crop sensor body is doing at night games, but just knowing how my camera's handle ISO, I would suggest a FF camera before a big lens.

Here are a few examples:


FF sensor ISO 4000, F/2.8, 1/500 with a 70/200



Crop sensor ISO 1600, 1/500 with a 70/200





Both pics are good, but even at ISO 1600 there is some noise on the crop and at ISO 4000 on the Full Frame, there is no noise.

So, that's my 2 cents. I suggest investing in a FF first. It's almost a must for sports photogs.

johng

Travis,

What is the total list of sports you want to shoot?
That will help determine if 400mm is "too much" reach.

But also be aware of WHICH 400mm you're looking at - you want the IS v2 (I believe that is correct). Previous lenses will no longer have parts for them. So if something breaks you're in trouble.

Also, will you have a second body to shoot with?

travischance

Erbeman wrote: »

I had been thinking about this exact quandry since the end of last football season. The wife said she would get me a 300 before next season started for my birthday. Well, the more I thought about it, I started leaning towards a used 400 for about $6k instead of a new 300 for $5k. However, I shoot with a Nikon FF and a crop as my 2nd camera. The thing you need to think about is, FF camera's are just plain better at shooting night games because of the higher ISO capabilities. I shoot Nikon, so I'm not familiar with your camera body, but, most games are at night. I've not seen any of your football pics, so I couldn't tell you what I think about how well you crop sensor body is doing at night games, but just knowing how my camera's handle ISO, I would suggest a FF camera before a big lens.

Here are a few examples:


FF sensor ISO 4000, F/2.8, 1/500 with a 70/200

Crop sensor ISO 1600, 1/500 with a 70/200


Both pics are good, but even at ISO 1600 there is some noise on the crop and at ISO 4000 on the Full Frame, there is no noise.

So, that's my 2 cents. I suggest investing in a FF first. It's almost a must for sports photogs.

Thanks Russ & I'll keep this in mind. Great shots (I remember the Michael Crabtree shot on your site from a while ago).

travischance

johng wrote: »

Travis,

What is the total list of sports you want to shoot?
That will help determine if 400mm is "too much" reach.

But also be aware of WHICH 400mm you're looking at - you want the IS v2 (I believe that is correct). Previous lenses will no longer have parts for them. So if something breaks you're in trouble.

Also, will you have a second body to shoot with?

John:

Primarily football but a good amount of baseball as well. Thanks for the update on version 2 of the 400....I wasn't aware that replacement parts were unavailable. This adds a little bit of complexity to my scenario & is something to think about. If I'm correct, version 1 did not have IS correct? At the current moment, I only have plans on managing one body. In my first attempt at shooting a HS football game last year, I attempted to use two bodies & by the second quarter I was only using a 40D & 100-400L. While I realize that having two bodies will allow me to shoot everything, I'd prefer to only have 1 body + lens in the beginning as I develop the skills necessary for sports photography. I posted some Baseball photos from earlier in the year & the recommendation was that I needed more reach.Thanks again.

EDIT: I re-edited all of the baseball photos from the post above thus the reason why no photos are visible. They can be found here if needed.

travischance

My 300 2.8 arrived today but the original keys were not included. The Canon representative recommended that I visit a luggage repair shop. Has anyone else experienced a similar scenario?

ian408

Nope. Seem kind of lame that the keys aren't in the box. Did you check the handles? or maybe the packing material? My experience with the box is that they're not locked and the keys are inside them.

Cousin Madness

I have the EF300f2.8 and the EF400f2.8 Travis. To be honest I never use the keys. If anyone is going to take the case away trust me they will use a sledgehammer or cutting torch to get into it.

Good choice on your 300. I am just seeing the thread now and thought the 400 was a bit too much reach with a crop sensor for what you need it for. It's also too heavy and too darned expensive.

Look forward to seeing some shots with your new baby.


Martin.

travischance

Cousin Madness wrote: »

Martin.

Thanks Martin. After mounting my camera to a 400 a few weeks ago, I realized that a 300 would suit my needs. I'll post some pics from this upcoming weekends semi-pro football game (semi pro) if my wife doesn't go into labor!

ian408

So you got the case open?

travischance

Yes I was able to get it open. Still no key, but like all my gear, it's insured against loss, theft or irreparable damage.

ian408

Sweet! Not like that lock is super secure or anything

pathfinder

I never use my cases, all my long glass is in Kinesis bags...

Padded, highly water resistant, can be worn like a backpack, and less flash to catch someone's thieving eye I think.

I agree that the 400 f2.8 is too large and too long for most sport shooting with a 7D as well.

travischance

pathfinder wrote: »

Great recommendation & a really nice bag. I like the fact that I can keep both a body and the lens attached in one case. Thanks again!